1
How did the controversy over slavery between 1854 and 1858 result in the crisis of “Bleeding Kansas”?
By
Stuart Dent
Extended Essay
Mrs. S. Driver
May 2013
Word Count:3924
1
Abstract
This essay is primarily concerned with the question, “How did the controversy over slavery between 1854 and 1858 result in the crisis of “Bleeding Kansas”?” It explores the American debate between North and Southover slavery in the 1850s as the cause to the destruction in Kansasterritory. Based on the limited amount of knowledge of this crisis and the omission of the crisis by many historians from their works on slavery, I was prompted to investigate this topic. I find the crisis to be important as a cause of the American Civil War and essential for examination.
The essay investigates the variety of causes that increased the controversy and thusthe research consulted is considered broad as it covers slavery in all aspects of the crisis. Moreover, I relied on primary and secondary sources. Mostly analyzed were documents by John Brown as he was essential to the violence surrounding the crisis and Bleeding Kansas by Alice Nichols as it was the only source that focussed purely on Kansas. Nichols limits her work to facts and events, including primary documents, and rarely goes into depth with specifics of the battles but rather the reactions surrounding the battles.In turn, I also left out specifics on battles as it did not directly relate to slavery. Also, I excluded events that only viewed one perspective in order to include all facets of the controversy.
The essay concludes that the lack of participation by the government in the crisis was significant in further separating the two sides and thus leading to the crisis. Also, the actions of political leaders and the raging emotions emerging as a result of the hostility contributed to the cause. However, the role that “Bleeding Kansas” played in the cause of The American Civil War still remains controversial.
Word Count: 299
Table of Contents
Abstract / 2Introduction / 4
Section 1: The Role of the Government in the Crisis / 5
Section 2: The Role of the Leaders in the Increasing Conflict between the Opposing Sides / 9
Section 3: The Revenge Factor Surrounding the Battles Included in the Crisis / 13
Conclusion / 17
Works Cited / 19
How did the controversy over slavery between 1854 and 1858 result in the crisis of “Bleeding Kansas”?
Introduction
Throughout American history there have been multiple disputes over the issue of slavery, the American Civil War of 1865 was the most consequential to the nation. Prior to the Civil War, in 1854 the beginning of an often disregarded but destructive crisis known as “Bleeding Kansas” occurred as a result of the controversy over slavery.
Kansas, first acquired in 1827 by the Americans, was said to be a land of great beauty where flowers bloomed on vast grasslands of deep rich soil,[1] “where all nature sang a continual song for freedom.”[2] Many settlers were attracted to the small, peaceful territory of Kansas before it became grounds for war over the slavery debate. This investigation will focus on the research question: How did the controversy over slavery between 1854 and 1858 result in the crisis of “Bleeding Kansas”? The two clashing sides were the North, who had often been referred to as “abolitionists” as they supported the concept of admitting free-states into the union, and the other was the South, who practised proslavery laws and hoped to expand slavery as new states were admitted into the union. Following the compromise of 1850, another chance for the two sides to compete for their contradicting desires came in 1854 with Stephan Douglass’ notion to follow New Mexico and Utah’s verdict to use popular sovereignty; this was used in order to decide the fate of the territory, also known as the Kansas-Nebraska act.[3]
From that day on matters in the nation were never be the same. It was a race across the border to cast a vote for the territory’s status. “Border Ruffians” were introduced as the sides met head to head aroused with speeches of hate and blood thirsty tactics. The results of the first election had been influenced and tampered with so much that “the destiny of the Kansas territory was shaped by men who never lived there.”[4]In the mid 1850’s the bias acts and tension inthe government, the powerful speeches and manipulations of influencing political figures and the revenge mounting from consecutive small battles led to polarized positions regarding slavery and resulted in the crisis of “Bleeding Kansas”.
Section 1: The Role of the Government in the Crisis
The passing of the Kansas-Nebraska bill of 1854allowed the Territories to vote whether they were to be slave or free. Thisproposed many challenges within the Federal Government that aided in the crisis of the territory of Kansas. In hopes to gain Southern support,Stephan Douglass proposed a bill that revoked the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which was meant to prevent the expansion of slavery, when he opened the North to the possibility of slavery.[5] This infuriated Northerners who hoped the government would support the demolition of slavery completely within the nation and thus led to their intrusion on Kansas. They did this and gained revenge on Douglass as they made certain that the voting in Kansas went in their favour since, unlike Nebraska, the bordered slavery states posed a threat. After consecutive Southern triumphs in the elections, Kansas acquired the South’s laws and the North was forced to create an opposing “Bogus Legislature” in order to challenge their laws.[6]Naturally, the two governments were unable to run the territory, constantly challenging one another causing the easily angered and aggressive South to use violence.Soon the territory was grounds for war as the opposing sides attempted to gain control by demolishing their opponents leavingsettlers, with no interest in the debate, right in the middle of the crisis. The Government’s underlying role in the cause of the crisis continued with many more careless acts.
Tension between government figures arose and violence broke out in congress providing the citizens with opportunities to act upon. The polarized opinions between Northern martyr, Senator Charles Sumner and Southern hero, Congressman Preston Brooks created passionate and inflamed emotions that further separated the two sides.[7]Citizens were now able to support one of the two politicians and comment or argue about their debates. Following a powerful speech by Sumner he was assaulted and beaten brutally by Congressmen Butler’s cane.[8]Those that were in support of Sumner were infuriated as a result and had an additional reason to be violent. This gruesome event led to further acts of destruction as the North capitalized on their need for revenge. As a result the involvement of the government only proved to heighten the debate in the crisis.
The naïve decisions that government figures madethat violated their neutral roles, with reference to Senator David Atchison’s falseaccusations,outraged the North. A particular cause to the North’s anger resulted from being falsely accused by Senator Atchison as abolitionists who supported freedom for blacks, while in reality many Southerners had testified to a “Negro free state”. For example, Reverend J.M. Tuttonfelt he was being outnumbered by slaveswhen he originally came to Kansas to live in a Free State.[9]The numerous slaves consumed the land and frustrated citizens that lost the opportunity to work on their own homesteads. Senator Atchison’s desire to kill every abolitionist in the area[10] encouraged many and his misconceptions were used as a method to influence Southern opinion of the North and increasedtheir desire for battle. This led to James Lane’s proposition for the Black Laws that were set to exclude all Blacks from Kansas.[11] This was proposed in order to settle matters with Senator Atchison; they were so aggravated that they felt they had to prove Atchison wrong and exposed his speeches and methods that inspired his people as false. In September of 1858 Abraham Lincoln delivered a speech at Charleston where he challenged the thoughts of Senator Atchison. As a valid representative of the falsely accused abolitionists he stated, “I am not, nor ever have been, in favour of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.”[12]Although Lincoln and the other Northerners wanted a free-state it was not because of their love for the slaves and yet they were forced to defend themselvesagainst their opposition.It was clear that these misconceptions were a large part in the Northern anger and passion during the crisis.
Governor support for the North became an addition to Southern anger as the support by the government meant an inheritance of free-state laws. Whenrepresentatives of the free-state party illegally imported large numbers of rifles they protested to Governor Shannon and testified that the rifles were personal property and thus could not be confiscated.[13] To the South’s surprise their complaints were accepted and matters overlooked. The evidence that the South needed for the demolition of the North was simply ignored by the government and the South grew impatient. The support continued with new Governor Geary’s arrival in 1856 as he tried to even out the power of the opposing legislatures in Kansas by allowing free-state men to continue enforcing their own laws. He blamed the crisis on proslavery men who first began with the determination to obtain the territoryby any means necessary.[14] With every new Governor, Southern anger grew and their need for a war to eliminate the opposition increased. It was not until May 27th of the following year where Kansas acquired the leadership of Governor Robert Walker[15] that Northern anger was tested.
Governor Walker was rumored to be a strict leader that could save Kansas but his platform pleased neither side and added to their rage and desire for battle. He threatened the free-state party to enforce territorial usurpation, where he recognized the Southern legislature, and made countless promises to the South that he could not uphold.[16] None of these promises were accounted for during the October elections of 1857 where he gave control of Kansas to the Northern legislature for the first time and infuriated the South. He stationed federal troops along the borders to eliminate any outside influence yet disregarded ballots from proslavery dominated, McGee county and Oxford.[17] Governor Walker left Kansas in a worse condition with riots and protests breaking out all over the territory because of his actions.During a speech delivered in 1857 John Brown commented on the American Government’s ignorance to spend half a million in one year to force slavery in the territory when they passed the Kansas-Nebraska bill for a fair voting process.[18]The government wanted a peaceful voting process with popular sovereignty yet they watched and contributed to the destruction and casualties that consumed the territory.
Section 2: The Role of the Party Leaders in the Increasing Conflict between the Opposing Sides
Citizens encouraged to enter Kansashad been inspired to act by powerful speeches about rights and threats of violence on the opposing side performed by authoritative figures. At the Southern end was Missourian Senator Atchison who spoke of defending slavery “with the bayonet and with blood”[19]to avoid having a free state as their western neighbour.Multiple newspapers were printed to further show citizens the opinions and attitudes of fellow teammates. The battle cries of troops camped out on the eve of election day were read in the Kickapoo Pioneer “Let the war cry never cease in Kansas again until our territory is wrested from the last vestige of abolitionism”[20]while the Tribune published those of Northern troops. Now that the South was rallied and prepared for their intrusion the North was in need ofencouragement to outnumber the neighboring Missourians. These speeches had an impact on citizens such as Sara Robinson who used Atchison’s phrases when speaking of the North or “Negroe stealers” to suggest they eliminate everyone that fit in this class upon their arrival in Kansas.[21] The power that influential leaders had, as there behaviour and actions were imitated by citizens, like Sara Robinson, allowed for their emotional speeches to be a significant factor in the raging emotionsthat surrounded minor events.
As violence spread throughout Kansaseven the smallest of events were exaggerated to achieve the rebellious reaction from citizens that led to the crisis. Citizens believed it was their duty to strike back with a larger attack in order to avenge the loss of their teammate.At the passing of the Kansas-Nebraska bill the once innocent and loyal North made it very clear that they were a force to be reckoned with at the response of Senator William H. Seward:
Come on then, gentlemen of the slave states! Since there is no escaping your challenge, I accept it, in behalf of freedom. We will engage in competition for the virgin soil of Kansas and God give victory to the side that is stronger in numbers, as it is in right. [22]
They were aware of the importance in acquiring Kansas and did not back down even though it meant they engage in battle. Seward gave the North the courage to enter Kansas and fight against the South. Consequently, Northern attitude matched the South as they went head to head at the sign of any conflict big or small, beginning with Sam Wood. Young, Northerner Sam Wood was threatened to be arrested as the territory was under the laws of the Southern legislature where arresting an abolitionist was encouraged by Senator Atchison.[23]Sam Wood was taken away and although he was released it was rumoured that they had killed him. This one rumoured death sparkedthe statement that “His murder shall be avenged; if at the sacrifice of every abolitionist in the territory…should it result in the total destruction of the Union.”[24]These extreme reactions to kill a mass of people for the death of one citizen were the result of leaders’ strategic opinions. The bias continued with the Jury’s decision to favor the guilty acts of the proslavery men. On the walk home, an innocent young free-state man was beaten up by a group of proslavery men and was badly injured.[25] When the proslavery men were backed by the Jury a string of vengeful events followed to avenge the young man’s sacrifice. Therefore, the decisions that these influential figures in the courts made with the assumption that no consequences would arise ultimately led to the casualties and destruction of the crisis.
From the day that the Kansas-Nebraska bill passed many foresaw a civil war and thus upon entrance into Kansas they were prepared.The well-known, charismatic political leader, Abraham Lincoln, reflected on the crisis and explained its inevitability in terms of human nature. He was recognized as against slaverysince he believed it was a vivid example of human greed and selfishness, he explained that with “these principles are an external antagonism, and when brought into collision so fiercely as slavery extension brings them, shocks and throes and convulsions must ceaselessly follow.”[26]He believed that the debate over slavery was so significant that it was bound to deepen and thus lead to the outbreak of war. Furthermore, those involved in the debate acted on his knowledge and prepared themselves. At the appeal for popular sovereignty, Governor Shannon reached a similar conclusion to Lincoln’s. He foresaw the conflict and took into account Stephan Douglass’s actions to have a private voting, and concluded that a civil war was the only result.[27]Many agreed with the claim that a war was unavoidable as obtaining Kansas was shown to be of equally immense importance and value for both sides. The North saw Kansas as essential territory to claim in order to start their expansion over the nation. The ratio of free to slave states was equal and essentially whoever could tip the balance had complete power. Similarly, the South was well aware of this theory and also that the slave state of Missouri was already bordered by two Free states and to be bordered by three would bedisastrous.[28]Atchison stressed the importance of a crisis and claimed on behalf of the South: “We are playing for a mighty stake, if we win we carry slavery to the Pacific Ocean, if we fail we lose Missouri,Arkansas and Texas and all the Territories, the game must be played boldly.”[29] Citizens were put under pressure as the outcome of this argument was stressed by Atchison as vital to the future of their party and thus they had to eliminate the competition. This knowledge was resourceful for newspapersthat inspired entrance into Kansas. The Tribune published the gruesome and vile support of Atchison’s challenge with troops that claimed they meant to have Kansasand theyhad to have it even if it meant the death of multitudes of people.[30]This perseverance and strong will of the troops was inspiring and set an example for citizens to imitate. It was evident that influential leaders had variety of sources, such as speeches and articles as well as strategies like guilt and inspirational pride, to alter or increase the raging emotions to benefit the future of their side. Moreover, the rage and desire for battle that many citizens had for their opposition that was boiling inside them for a long time made it very easy for leaders to spark powerful emotions from them.